Sagan’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is nonsense. Here’s why

[Akhenaten]

I'll have $2 each way, please.

 

[Wudang]

Nah, he'll seize on the subjective nature of "significance." For example, rramjet already believes in aliens, so evidence of aliens is not significant enough to him to prove the existence of aliens.

But his own logic means that those of us who regard the claim as significant will require significant evidence, and if we regard the claim as extraordinarily significant then we will require extraordinarily significant evidence.

 

[blobru]

I'll have $2 each way, please.

Can you break a four (it's all I've got)?

 

[jiggeryqua]

I think most of the explanations of why ECREE is coherent and useful are valid even if we are just at the level of deciding whether a claim is worth taking seriously, not validating the truth of the claim.

Which once again doesn't address the point at all, and falls into the overly common binary trap: if my post does anything less than throw rocks at Rramjet, why, I must be arguing against ECREE...

Again: much of that which acts to prevent the participants establishing agreement hangs on a confusion between evidence and proof. Much can be evidence, without being convincing or compelling.

 

[Wudang]

Which once again doesn't address the point at all, and falls into the overly common binary trap: if my post does anything less than throw rocks at Rramjet, why, I must be arguing against ECREE...

Again: much of that which acts to prevent the participants establishing agreement hangs on a confusion between evidence and proof. Much can be evidence, without being convincing or compelling.

I'm not sure what reading you took out of my post. I am saying that different levels of evidence are required for considering a claim and for validating it. A rather low level for the former. As has been said some of the great scientific advances have come from someone saying "that's funny".
However once a claim has been considered several times and the evidence for the claim has been considered and found wanting then we would require a higher level of evidence to re-consider the claim. We do not need to re-open the whole evidence basket when we get one more report of a "funny light", a blurry photo, a pre-publication report of homeopathy faring better than placebo. We can economise on our efforts and say "SSDD". Note that this is a general rule of thumb rather like ECREE or Occam.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

falls into the overly common binary trap: if my post does anything less than throw rocks at Rramjet, why, I must be arguing against ECREE...

I'd remind you that not all dichotomies are false. The majority of the people throwing rocks at rramjet are doing so because they have previously tried to engage him in honest debate and in return have received only condescension, disingenuous rhetoric, and outright dismissal (in that order, generally), at which point throwing rocks is all there is left to do. I know you're trying to play the devil's advocate here, but your client continually proves himself incapable or unwilling to actually listen to his opponents. You might want to reconsider this case.

 

[Rramjet]

...much of that which acts to prevent the participants establishing agreement hangs on a confusion between evidence and proof. Much can be evidence, without being convincing or compelling.

Indeed. The concept of a weight of evidence suggesting a conclusion rather than the evidence definitively proving a conclusion. Of course in that context, the following has been studiously ignored by my opponents:

”Weight of Evidence … is something widely used both by scientists in evaluating data and in setting regulations and guidelines in the public policy sphere, and is widely understood but is hard to define. Why? Because it calls upon all of one's expertise, training and experience and it addresses all types of issues concerning data big and small. A definition would probably require pages. It is this very imprecision that causes problems in the courtroom: something that is not clearly defined can be defined any way one likes. And so the court tends to avoid weight of evidence testimony and opinions even though they underpin scientific practice.”

(…)

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.” (http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/...fevidence.html)​

My opponents seem to want evidence to be only of the definitive kind – and they are then somehow equating “extraordinary” with ‘definitive”. If definitive evidence is produced for an extraordinary claim then they will believe the claim.

My argument is however not with that, it is with the relationship between definitive and extraordinary. That is, what makes that definitive evidence extraordinary? Definitive evidence is provided every day for all sorts of claims. None of it considered extraordinary…

My argument is that if we cannot adequately define extraordinary evidence, then ECREE is nonsense. Pure and simple.

As no-one has yet come up with an adequate definition of extraordinary evidence – then I (and anyone else for that matter) is legitimately entitled to maintain that ECREE is nonsense.

Whenever my opponents have produced a definition, I have invariable been able to demonstrate that definition to be inadequate (I challenge my opponents to come up with one that I have not been able to successfully refute). That definitional inadequacy is then totally ignored by my opponents – they shift the topic, they launch ad hominem attacks, they produce lies about my position on other subjects, they generally ridicule, deny and obfuscate, they duck and weave – and then when pressed re-emerge with exactly the same definition that has been refuted previously! No wonder the thread seems interminable…

A lot of nonsense and lies about my position have been proposed – but absolutely no adequate answers to the central question have been forthcoming: What is extraordinary evidence?

If we cannot adequately define extraordinary evidence, then ECREE is nonsense!

 

[RoboTimbo]

Indeed. The concept of a weight of evidence suggesting a conclusion rather than the evidence definitively proving a conclusion. Of course in that context, the following has been studiously ignored by my opponents:

”Weight of Evidence … is something widely used both by scientists in evaluating data and in setting regulations and guidelines in the public policy sphere, and is widely understood but is hard to define. Why? Because it calls upon all of one's expertise, training and experience and it addresses all types of issues concerning data big and small. A definition would probably require pages. It is this very imprecision that causes problems in the courtroom: something that is not clearly defined can be defined any way one likes. And so the court tends to avoid weight of evidence testimony and opinions even though they underpin scientific practice.”

(…)

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.” (http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/...fevidence.html)​

When will you be refuting all of the definitions for extraordinary evidence that have already been given to you? Where does your confusion lie? And why do you assert that a usual and expected number is extraordinary out of one side of your mouth and that it isn't out of the other side of your mouth?

My opponents seem to want evidence to be only of the definitive kind – and they are then somehow equating “extraordinary” with ‘definitive”. If definitive evidence is produced for an extraordinary claim then they will believe the claim.

Why do you hypocritically assert that you must compare objective things before you can declare one or another to be extraordinary (see your Usain Bolt example) out of one side of your mouth and out of the other side of your mouth you assert that a woman can be extraordinarily beautiful?

My argument is however not with that, it is with the relationship between definitive and extraordinary. That is, what makes that definitive evidence extraordinary? Definitive evidence is provided every day for all sorts of claims. None of it considered extraordinary…

When was an alien body, alien spaceship or alien raygun submitted every day? Those would be some extraordinary evidence!

My argument is that if we cannot adequately define extraordinary evidence, then ECREE is nonsense. Pure and simple.

But your argument is built on hyocrisy and you've never been able to overcome that. Indeed, knowing that your position is bankrupt, you act as if the argument doesn't exist. Having your fingers in your ears is no way to go through life, son.

Why do you hypocritically assert that the more a claim matters to you the better the evidence you will require for it out of one side of your mouth while out of the other side of your mouth you believe UFOs are pseudoaliens on the lowest garbage evidence?

As no-one has yet come up with an adequate definition of extraordinary evidence – then I (and anyone else for that matter) is legitimately entitled to maintain that ECREE is nonsense.

Until you can answer those questions without hypocrisy, I and everyone else may legitimately dismiss your hypocritical arguments as nonsense.

Whenever my opponents have produced a definition, I have invariable been able to demonstrate that definition to be inadequate (I challenge my opponents to come up with one that I have not been able to successfully refute). That definitional inadequacy is then totally ignored by my opponents – they shift the topic, they launch ad hominem attacks, they produce lies about my position on other subjects, they generally ridicule, deny and obfuscate, they duck and weave – and then when pressed re-emerge with exactly the same definition that has been refuted previously! No wonder the thread seems interminable…

No, you are incorrect. It is interminable because you hypocritically and selectively understand the word extraordinary and then out of the other side of your mouth you don't.

A lot of nonsense and lies about my position have been proposed – but absolutely no adequate answers to the central question have been forthcoming: What is extraordinary evidence?

Yep, they've been pointed out to you, too. When will you cease such shenanigans?

If we cannot adequately define extraordinary evidence, then ECREE is nonsense!

If you cannot answer the substantive questions about your hypocrisy, then your arguments are nonsense!

 

[Akhenaten]

Whenever my opponents have produced a definition, I have invariable been able to demonstrate that definition to be inadequate (I challenge my opponents to come up with one that I have not been able to successfully refute).

I have absolutely no doubt, Rramjet, that you could similarly demonstrate that the definitions of 'black' and 'white' are inadequate and that therefore the whole idea of a zebra is nonsense.

That definitional inadequacy is then totally ignored by my opponents – they shift the topic, they launch ad hominem attacks, they produce lies about my position on other subjects, they generally ridicule, deny and obfuscate, they duck and weave – and then when pressed re-emerge with exactly the same definition that has been refuted previously! No wonder the thread seems interminable…

I similarly have absolutely no doubt that you would defend such pettifogging nonsense until hell froze over, the whole while complaining that your scurrilous and unprincipled opponents were engaging in ad hominem attacks against you and dismissing any and all of their attempts to present evidence of zebraness as “““definitional inadequacy”””.

A lot of nonsense and lies about my position have been proposed – but absolutely no adequate answers to the central question have been forthcoming: What is extraordinary evidence?

Adequate??? Adequate for what purpose, Rramjet?

Adequate to make a case that the NWO expunge every occurence of ECREE from the record and ban it's utterance forever under pain of Something Really Nasty?

Adequate to overturn all of the science that's been done in the last 30 years, tainted as it must be by the Evil Ægis of Ecreedom™?

Adequate to require that the 500 million people who have seen Cosmos report to special Rramjet-approved institutions for re-education?

Adequate to force the IOC into observing a Moment Skyward at next years Olympic Games?


You see Rramjet? If we cannot adequately define adequate then Rramjettery is nonsense.

 

[Akhenaten]

Can you break a four (it's all I've got)?

No problem. Will a two and a couple of singles be OK?

 

[RoboTimbo]

One of these...

So when I claim to have visited a nightclub last night (an extraordinary claim because I have never visited one before and have vowed never to cross the threshold of one) then you would demand “better” evidence than my mere say so?

...is not like the other.

The cat at the nightclub is not extraordinary at all, indeed I have seen many people take a range of much stranger pets into a nightclub…

You still can't keep your story straight, Rramjet.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Rramjet, ever heard the expression "When in a hole, stop digging"?

 

[blobru]

No problem. Will a two and a couple of singles be OK?

​

Why won't this ordinary money fit in my ordinary wallet?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why won't this ordinary money fit in my ordinary wallet?

If ordinary money won't fit in an ordinary wallet, it's nonsense!

 

[blobru]

If ordinary money won't fit in an ordinary wallet, it's nonsense!

Non-cents.

 

[Rramjet]

Adequate??? Adequate for what purpose, Rramjet?

Adequate for the purposes of making sense of ECREE. I would have thought that much was patently obvious by now…

So can you provide a definition of “extraordinary evidence” that would allow us to make sense of ECREE?

 

[John Albert]

This is without a doubt the silliest thread I have yet encountered on these forums.

And that's saying a LOT.

 

[Akhenaten]

Adequate??? Adequate for what purpose, Rramjet?

Adequate for the purposes of making sense of ECREE. I would have thought that much was patently obvious by now…

You seem to have left a bit out of the post that you quoted.

You see Rramjet? If we cannot adequately define adequate then Rramjettery is nonsense.

So can you provide a definition of “extraordinary evidence” that would allow us to make sense of ECREE?

We don't find it necessary.

Which word are you having the most trouble with, and we'll start with that?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, as you've continued posting in this thread, you will need to answer the substantive questions about your hypocritical approach to the word "extraordinary". If all we can see from you is hypocrisy, all of your arguments are agenda-driven nonsense.

If you can't refute ECREE, all of your arguments are agenda-driven nonsense.

 

[Apology]

Rramjet, as you've continued posting in this thread, you will need to answer the substantive questions about your hypocritical approach to the word "extraordinary". If all we can see from you is hypocrisy, all of your arguments are agenda-driven nonsense.

If you can't refute ECREE, all of your arguments are agenda-driven nonsense.

I, for one, would like to see an answer to your question about how an ordinary and expected number can somehow be extraordinary when Rramjet talks about it.

I would like a clear and concise essay on Rramjet's criteria for deeming something "ordinary" or "extraordinary".